We at SADJ wanted to cover the history of U.S. grenade machine guns, and with a recent visit to US Ordnance, the prime manufacturer of the MK19 Mod 3, it seemed like a perfect time. Later in this article, we’ll cover the modern MK19 system and improvements in depth. But first, a look at where we’ve come from...

Throwing grenades is nothing new. Reports of tossing explosives at enemies go back to the dark ages and certainly many armies had “grenadiers” in the 1700s and 1800s; light the fuse, toss the grenade. It wasn’t until mechanical fuses and primer firing were evolved that the idea of launching grenades automatically occurred. There are many early patents for weapons designed to launch explosive devices, but until the 1950s, the U.S. didn’t take the idea too seriously. With the advent of the 40x46mm grenade and its legendary M79 launcher, wheels started turning in the minds of designers and soldiers alike. Evolution of the single shot launchers has been covered in-depth by SADJ in the past; it is the idea of the U.S. designed, belt-fed, quickly repeating launchers that is our subject.

A proper timeline would be in two lines; the 40x46mm low velocity rounds, and the 40x53mm high velocity rounds. LV rounds have a range of 350-400 meters and can be shoulder fired or fired in a vehicle-mounted full-auto launcher, the HV rounds can go out to 2200 meters and are not for shoulder fired launchers.

Approximate Milestones for 40×46 Low Velocity Development:

1950s: Development of the 40x46mm low velocity grenade, and M79 launcher.
1965: Development and deployment of the MK18 Mod 0 crank fired launcher.
1968-71: Development and deployment of the MK20 Mod 0 automatic launcher.
1968: Development and deployment of various XM174E2 launchers.
1968: Development and deployment of the dual caliber M129 helicopter gun.

Approximate Milestones for 40×53 High Velocity Development:

1964: Final evolution of the 40x53mm high velocity grenade.
1966: MK19 Mod 0 design at Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville.
1969-74: Development of the Hughes XM175 series of launchers.
1968: Deployment of the first MK19 Mod 0 to Vietnam.
1971: Deployment of the first MK19 Mod 1 to Vietnam.
1974: Development of the MK19 Mod 2, not fielded.
1970s (Approximate): 600 MK19 Mod 2 Aluminum receiver guns- Israel.
1984-1989: Final development and manufacture of the MK19 Mod 3 by Saco Defense, then 1990s General Dynamics, and currently US Ordnance.

“The Honeywell Gun,” variously called the XM172, or the MK18 Mod 0, this was a crank fired belt fed, with 40x46mm ammunition; the same ammunition used in the M203/M79/M320 system. The ammunition is pre-loaded into a tape that holds the case in line with the barrel. Two rounds were fired per full revolution of the belt, allowing for slow, ranging fire, or firing up to about 250 rounds per minute. Belts were 24- or 48-round lengths. This was into action in about 1965 and survived in various places for U.S. forces (Navy) in Vietnam, primarily on “PBRs” (patrol boat, river) although some use on Chinook helicopters working over landing zone perimeters was seen.

MK18 Mod 0 with the cover open, showing the lower rotor with a round in position, and the upper rotor inside the cover. The two rotors are keyed together so that when the top cover is down, each rotor makes half of the chamber. Since it is Hi-Low pressure, low velocity, the round can be fired like this, and much like a revolver, the projectile must enter a separate barrel. The rounds were initially held in a metallic tape, since they didn’t need to be extracted, the tape simply came through with empty cartridge cases in it. This was later changed to a reloadable Mylar backed fabric which, for many, doubled as a grenadier’s belt for the M79 shooters.

Around 1966, the Navy wanted a better system than hand-cranking. Colonel George M. Chinn, author of the famous five-volume series of books “The Machine Gun” was involved. His team at Naval Ordnance Station in Louisville, Kentucky was simultaneously involved in designing an automatic grenade launcher to replace the crank-fired MK18 and, by 1967, the team had the boxlike MK20 Mod 0 in 40x46mm, and was preparing for the new MK19 system in 40x53mm.

The MK20 is an unusual design, the cocking handle is pushed forward, and the barrel moves forward and stays “cocked.” On pushing the trigger, the barrel springs to the rear, over the grenade, pushing it onto the firing pin and the barrel moves forward with the projectile moving forward in its bore. The cycle repeats as long as the trigger is depressed. Production was ended in 1971, when Chinn’s group was advancing the MK19 system.

The MK19 Mod 0 was fielded, at first, in 1968 in small numbers in Vietnam, and was an unreliable system. It utilized the newly designed 40x53mm round, and fired from an “open bolt” but using ‘advance primer ignition’. This means the firing pin struck the primer before the cartridge was fully seated and in battery. The Mod 1 debuted as in this example in 1971 and, by 1974, it was evident that there were reliability issues and a “Mod 2” was designed but not implemented. These were all done by Colonel Chinn’s team at the Naval Ordnance Station in Louisville, Kentucky.

There was, in fact, a production of the Mod 2. The MK19 Mod 2 Israeli contract gun in 40x53mm with an aluminum receiver. Approximately 600 were made. There’s no clear historical evidence pointing to the location of actual manufacture; at Naval Ordnance, or as a technical data package exported to Israel, perhaps with parts for assembly abroad.

In any event, these functioned but were not advanced into larger production and the MK19 Mod 3 replaced them in service. The Israeli Mod 2s were sold on the surplus market, and the parts were initially offered as “MK19 Mod 3” replacement parts in the mid-2000s, but of course none of the parts interchanged with the Mod 3 guns. Some steel receivers were made and project guns tested in the U.S. by a variety of smaller manufacturers, but there was a clear size and parts difference with the issue MK19 Mod 3. Today, it appears these parts are offered as “MK19 Mod 2.5” complete guns in a modern production, new receiver program. Not to discourage potential end users, but these are not compatible with the MK19 Mod 3 system, which is physically larger and does not interchange parts. It would be inadvisable to mix the systems and support, so if the Mod 2.5 is chosen, it should be supported on its own and verification of spare parts supply should be done.

M129: This is a unique electrically operated system that had a cam path in the receiver housing, but instead of the bolt traveling in that path like a Gatling or an M134, the barrel reciprocated. The barrel would start in the forward position, and when fired would cam back over the round, fire it, then move forward for extraction. These were mounted in chin pods on the front of many Huey gunships in Vietnam as well as other rotary winged aircraft. It replaced the very similar M75 system which had accuracy issues, among other problems. The M129 could fire either 40x46mm or 40x53mm grenades, depending on how the feed was set up.

The XM174E2 was a drum fed 40x46mm automatic gun on tripod that was made in very small quantity in the late 1960s by Aerojet Ordnance & Manufacturing Company. These made a shadowy appearance in Vietnam: Colonel David Lutz, USMC ret’d, told this author once of how he’d found two of these XM174E2s with drum feeds at a base armory and took them to his area of operations in the A Shau valley. He and his men were quite impressed with the accuracy and firepower in fighting the Vietcong and NVA, and wanted more of them. As Colonel Lutz (Lt. Lutz at the time) stated it “Then, adult supervision showed up, demanded to know where we had gotten these, and took them away in that time-honored military tradition of if it works well, you can’t have it.”

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were two versions of the M175 40x53mm grenade machine gun; first was the XM175AL (above, left) which had a milled, rounded receiver, and the second version XM175ST (above, right) had a boxlike sheet metal receiver. Hughes Gun Systems in Culver City, California was the design group and manufacturer. Both were open bolt firing, link-belt fed, could be converted to be right- or left-feed, and did not require external power like the M129. The M175 was designed initially for ground vehicle use, and then the vision changed for it to become a manually operated helicopter door gun.

More on the MK19 in the Modern Day….

In the 1980s, FNMI in South Carolina was awarded the contracts for the M16A2, the M249 SAW, the M240G, and the MK19 Mod 3, all at the same time. Chief Engineer George Kontis described the situation, “We knew we could not properly perform all four of the contracts simultaneously, and the contracting officer did as well, and offered our choice of three—leave one behind. After a full review, I determined that the MK19 Mod 3 TDP and learning curve would be the hardest, so FNMI withdrew from the MK19.”

Saco Defense was awarded the contract for MK19 Mod 3, and it took almost six years to develop the TDP and production process on the especially difficult receiver and bolt production. We visited the Saco facility numerous times during this period and tested the weapon in many of the phases of production along with the M6E4 program run by Marc Desrochers. Kevin Sullivan of today’s Nostromo company was project manager in the mid to later MK19 program success. Saco was bought out by General Dynamics, and the GD MK19 Mod 3 production was in full delivery for many years. Several other companies have tried to go into production, but the advantage goes to larger companies, and indeed the U.S. DoD wanted a secondary manufacturer capability during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; ATK was awarded this, with FN Manufacturing as a subcontractor on the receivers and bolt bodies.

In the 1990s, I was involved in importation of special tripods and mounts from Vinghog of Norway for my USG customers. At that time, the accepted first burst hit probability at 1000 meters for the MK19 Mod 3 on M3 tripod with fixed cradle was approximately 53%. In our testing for U.S. government agencies, we ascertained that the HK GMG had a much higher first burst hit probability, and much of that advantage was in the tripod and soft mount as well as a good sighting system. (GMG testing for this author started in 1993 and continued through the Yuma Proving Ground tests in 1996-97. It’s a fine GMG but not the subject of this article).  

The customers wanted to retrofit their MK19s to gain similar accuracy. With the addition of the special Norwegian soft mount, the Adjustable Sight Mounting Bracket and some rudimentary head’s up sights with 40mm gradients, we brought the MK19 Mod 3 reliability to about 85% for first burst at 1000m. My point? The MK19 Mod 3 is an excellent grenade machine gun that needs mount stability and proper sighting. The advancements since that time have been by leaps and bounds, with the ability to land short bursts at long ranges increasing exponentially.

The MWO

There is a program that came out of the accuracy testing that was done. In June of 2002, a five-year plan was adopted for the MK19 Mod 3s in the U.S. Army system. MWO 9-1010-230-50-1 was implemented with an expected completion date of June 2007. However, that was only in the U.S. Army and later USMC/USN inventories; there are still tens of thousands of MK19 Mod 3 around the world that need this upgrade.

The purpose of this particular modification work order (MWO) is to convert the MK19 Mod 3 Grenade Machine Gun, to the MK19 Mod 3 with Adjustable Sight Mounting Bracket. Maintenance time is reduced and there is now a structural mounting point for fire control devices. The previous “sight mount” was a half-step, providing a not very secure rail base to the existing rear sight body. With this new purpose-designed mounting base, a variety of enhanced sighting devices can finally be used. The modification kit has the trapezoidal mounting base & screws, along with directions, and, for the armory, a fixture for drilling. This MWO was used as a vehicle to provide some upgrading of other parts, in particular the firing pin, firing pin sear, cam cocking, cocking lever and an adjustable secondary drive lever. 

US Ordnance has the contracts for the M60E4 (the Navy SEALs’ MK43), the US M2A1 .50 caliber, as well as M240 series and other M2 guns. After several years of research and prototyping, then going into production, US Ordnance perfected their MK19 Mod 3 manufacturing procedures. They had also inherited one of the original technical data packages (TDPs) that came from Colonel Chinn, and benefitted from employees who worked the original Saco and General Dynamics programs. In their arrangements with General Dynamics and the U.S. government, US Ordnance contracted to be the manufacturer of the MK19 Mod 3 grenade machine gun. They are the official U.S. government contractor for this system, as well as for foreign military sales (FMS) and sales to allied buyers. SADJ toured the manufacturing facility recently, and with the new U.S. government contract to supply all MK19 Mod 3 and repair parts, US Ordnance is preparing for a full mil-spec live-fire test, which we will participate in and bring the report to our readers. There is a complete upgrade program that should be available to most longtime users of the MK19 Mod 3 system. Rather, it is available, but many end users are not aware of it. I have participated in several over the years, but US Ordnance is the primary on this type of project. They can gauge your existing guns, recommend the upgrades, perform them in the factory or set up on site programs. This will not work on the MK19 Mod 1, Mod 2, or the “Mod 2.5” as can be seen in the history of the development, they are different guns from the most prolific and reliable Mod 3. Contrary to some advertising and “internet wizards,” the parts of those other models do not interchange with the MK19 Mod 3 40mm Grenade Machine Gun, and it is our sincere hope that this guide will help identify what systems are in place, and how to upgrade, repair, and maintain them.

Meanwhile, in the USSR…

While the U.S. was developing the 40x46mm and 40x53mm grenade machine guns, the Soviets were designing, as well. In 1965 the AGS concept was born and by 1971, production had begun. The AGS-17 30x29mm Grenade Machine Gun is a lightweight, tripod or vehicle mounted open bolt grenade launcher. It’s quite effective, and the smaller diameter, longer grenades have an almost spear-like travel to target. However, at 1700 meters range the time to target is very long, due to the high trajectory arc. Typically, the AGS is drum fed with 29 linked rounds per drum. SADJ has covered these extensively in the past and the analysis can be found at our websites.

Grenade Launcher Ammunition

40x46mm HE Fragmentation Hi-Low pressure, low velocity cutaway round for the M203/M79/M320 type launchers. The multiple fuses are in the front, the fragmentation ball is in the center (without energetics), and the base shows how the Hi-Low pressure system works. The primer is fired, igniting propellant in the central chamber which expands. When it reaches X pressure, it blows out through the vent holes into the sides into a much larger expansion chamber, creating a lower pressure that “pushes” the grenade into the barrel and downrange. Range is 350-400 meters.

At center is the 40x53mm Hi-Low pressure, high velocity cutaway round for the MK19/GMG and other Grenade Machine Gun systems, it is evident from the thick walls of the spherical chamber that there is much more pressure involved here. The cartridge case is 9mm longer than the 40×46 low velocity (M203) round, and the 40x53mm round cannot be chambered in the shoulder fired launchers. Range is out to 2200 meters, depending on firing platform.

Right is the VOG-25 40mm grenade, a “caseless” round that is front loaded into the barrel of the GP-25/30/34 underbarrel launchers. When the primer is struck, it ignites the propellant in the chamber at the very bottom, the expanding propellant gasses vent out into the base of the launcher forming the secondary low-pressure chamber and drive the grenade down the bore and downrange. There is no cartridge case left, it has all left the launcher downrange. Range is 350-400 meters.

Today’s USMC Rifle Company is arguably the most lethal in Corps history. Packing a variety of weapons from the 9mm M9 pistol to the 83mm SMAW, its six officers and 176 enlisted men are well equipped to deal with a whole catalog of battlefield threats. The company’s three Rifle Platoons are armed with M16A2 assault rifles, M203 grenade launchers, and the compact, fast-firing M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, giving them a kill zone out to 600 meters or more. These combat proven weapons are relatively light, providing highly effective firepower to dismounted infantrymen whose best chance for survival and mission success is to move fast and hit hard.

Weapons Platoon

The big bite that “Devil Dog” grunts can deliver comes from their own Weapons Platoon; 47 Marines specially trained in the efficient employment of machine guns, mortars and rocket launchers. This interesting mix gives the company commander the ability to respond quickly and decisively to many of the challenges that are likely to be encountered in both offensive and defensive situations.

Usually under command of a 1st Lieutenant, the Weapons Platoon is organized into three sections with distinct but sometimes overlapping capabilities. First, the Machine Gun Section has Six M240G general purpose machine guns that can pump 7.62mm NATO rounds out to a maximum effective range of some 1800 meters with significantly more punch and sustained volume of fire than the 5.56mm SAW. The M240G is based on the highly respected Belgian MAG58, and replaces the fragile and trouble prone M60E3. Although somewhat heavier than the “Sixty”, the “Two-Forty Golf” is virtually indestructible and uncannily reliable under the worst conditions. These machine guns are particularly effective when fired from tripod mounts, dealing with enemy troops and light vehicles with both direct and indirect fire capability as the rifle platoons do their job. (See tech specs at end of article)

Then, the Mortar Section is home for three 60mm M224 light mortars. They put bigger and more effective high explosive, illumination, and smoke rounds way beyond the reach of those shoulder-fired 40mm M203 grenade launchers found in the rifle squads. These mortars are the company commander’s “hip pocket artillery”, immediately on call to wreak havoc day or night on enemy formations during offensive and defensive operations. (See tech specs at end of article)

The Assault Section is the Weapons Platoon’s third element, with six MK153 Shoulder Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons, usually called “SMAWs.” These awesome 83mm rocket launchers are direct-fire weapons that are capable of dealing with a variety of targets including armored fighting vehicles and earth/log bunkers. Also, supporting the increasing emphasis on fighting in urban areas, the SMAW is astonishingly effective even against reinforced concrete buildings. You wouldn’t want to be hiding behind a wall when the SMAW’s High Explosive Dual Purpose round slams into it, instantly turning your squad into unrecognizable pulp from blast and fragments. The assault section also provides demolitions support as required with bangalore torpedoes, satchel charges and mines. (See tech specs at end of article)

Now, as fantastically capable as each of these heavy weapons can be, the company commander must employ them with skill and savvy to maximize their combined effect as a combat multiplier. While all of the factors that he must consider are way beyond the scope of this article, they obviously incorporate the basic triad of enemy, weather and terrain. Each of these must be taken into account as to how they will affect the desired outcome of either offensive (moving on the enemy) or defensive (luring him into your kill zone) operations with the least number of friendly casualties.

To this end, the commander relies to a large extent on advice from his Weapons Platoon commander — a very big responsibility for what is typically a lieutenant with only a year or two of real experience. How, then, does the Marine Corps ensure that this relatively green young man is equal to the job?

Infantry Officer Course

This challenge is met with a combination of formal schooling and on-the-job experience for a special breed of leader. While there is ample evidence that other components of the US Armed Forces are unevenly applying standards for officer selection and training in order to achieve social engineering “goals,” this doesn’t yet seem to be the case with the Marine Corps.

Always forward-deployed and with the strongest traditions of promotion based on merit and combat performance, the Corps remains committed to ensuring that its leaders are the best that America can provide. Marine officers, we are told, still get the kind of tough, uncompromising, and realistic training that keeps the Corps ready to fight anywhere in the world.

This is the responsibility of MCCDC, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, located at the “Crossroads of the Corps” at Quantico, Virginia. There, newly-commissioned lieutenants who aspire to become infantry leaders jump from the frying pan of the Basic Officer Course to the fire of IOC; the Infantry Officer Course. This is an intense ten week full-immersion program of instruction in the theory and practice of bootborne combat.

At IOC these extraordinary young men have the opportunity to learn about and live fire most of the standard weapons of the Infantry Battalion from 9mm pistol to 81mm mortar. They also get thoroughly indoctrinated in the principles of offensive and defensive combat operations with and without support fire from tactical aircraft and artillery — including Naval gunfire. All along the way they have to consistently demonstrate that they have what it takes. This is measured through both individual performance and how they conduct themselves as student leaders in a multitude of tactical exercises and other situations – that they have what it takes. Yes, they are allowed to make mistakes, but only the ones who show that they have learned and corrected are allowed to continue.

According to Captain George Schreffler, IOC instructor, every lieutenant receives a solid grounding in infantry tactics while at the Basic Officer Course. This, in theory, prepares him to serve as a provisional rifle platoon commander if necessary. The staff at the BOC screens its graduates and assigns only about 35 out of a company of some 250 as infantry students.

“The grueling IOC program,” Schreffler says, “ensures that those without the necessary decision-making ability or physical attributes don’t graduate.”

This includes more than half of their 50 days in the field in all kinds of weather in a simulated combat environment. There are numerous tests of decision-making skills amid food and sleep deprivation, plus the physical strain from a series of long and challenging hikes.

Schreffler is quick to point out that, “Most graduates freely admit that IOC is the most physically and mentally difficult challenge they ever faced.”

Live Fire Exercise

One of many intense and demanding exercises at IOC is the Weapons Platoon Live Fire, typically scheduled near the end of the ten week course. MCCDC course materials state the purpose of this is “to successfully employ all crew-served weapons assets of the Marine Rifle Company in accordance with a ground scheme of maneuver.” While this may seem a straightforward tasking to the casual observer, there is a lot that goes into it.

First, there is the need to translate a formal Operations Order into a plan for both maneuver and fire support and to ensure that all players know what their responsibilities are. Then, the platoon must successfully move by both Amphibious Armored Assault Vehicle and by foot to take up planned positions on unfamiliar terrain. Finally, the various weapons must be fired on schedule and on targets both anticipated and unanticipated. Oh, by the way, there may be a few surprises here and there, courtesy of the IOC cadre….

With student lieutenants in all roles from weapons crewmen to platoon commander, the possibilities for both comedy and tragedy are seemingly endless.

I arrived on Quantico’s Range 6 on the morning of 23 Nov, as the Marine lieutenants of IOC Classs #1-100 prepared for the first of two full scale runs of the Live Fire exercise. The Battalion Commander’s Operations Order had already been given to the student acting as Weapons Platoon Commander and all of the various sections were busy with rehearsals and other preparations.

The canned Operations Order used for this exercise is plausibly based on real-life possibilities with a tactical scenario involving hostile forces in Bosnia. The mission of Fox Company’s Weapons Platoon is to move undetected into suitable positions then put fifteen minutes of suppressive fire on an enemy howitzer battery and the motorized rifle platoon that is protecting it. Properly executed, this will cover two of Fox Co.’s rifle platoons as they flank and assault the enemy positions, clearing the way for fast movement of follow-on forces.

For rehearsal purposes and later during actual movement and firing, each section was under direct supervision of a Marine non-commissioned officer who was an expert in tactical employment of that weapon. From what I observed, these corporals and sergeants were very professional and matter-of-fact with the lieutenants, providing lessons not only in how to use the weapons, but also how to interact with enlisted men whose experience and knowledge are always essential to mission success.

Meanwhile, support personnel were also busy with many tasks necessary to make the exercise work despite competing necessities of both safety and realism. This included an amazing variety of items from toilet paper to TOW missiles, with stacks of ammunition, several different tactical radios, and four big, hulking AAVP-7 (Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel) tracked vehicles.

Also, in addition to the standard crew-served arms found in the Weapons Platoon, exercise play would include some interesting assets from the Infantry Battalion’s Weapons Company. The student platoon commander would be able to call on support fire from 81mm mortars and 105mm howitzers, as well as a pair of tough and squat “Humm-Vees,” one mounting a TOW antiarmor missile, and the other a .50 caliber heavy machine gun. All of these, by the way, were crewed by experienced Marine enlisted men from the MCCDC’s Weapons Platoon, Combat Instructor Company, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School.

Had the weather cooperated the exercise would also have the dramatic advantage of close air support. This usually comes in the form of fast movers like the F/A-18 HORNET and the AV-8 HARRIER, or from attack helicopters. Now, before anybody gets upset that poor visibility kept the air support on the ground, let it be said that rules of combat are much different from rules of peacetime training. It doesn’t make sense to take a chance of crashing good aircraft and killing good pilots for a fairly routine ground training exercise.

“Move Out!”

By early afternoon everything seemed to be in order and the students loaded up into the AAVP-7s for the first phase of movement. These remarkable amphibious tracked vehicles serve as battle taxis, capable of delivering up to 18 Marine infantrymen in full gear from a seaborne assault ship to even miles inland if required. Although awkward and slow moving, they have a lethal sting in the form of an armored turret mounted with two belt-fed machine guns, one a .50 cal. M2 and the other a 40mm Mk19. (See tech specs)

The 60mm mortar section was the first group to disembark along the route of motor march. This allows them time to set up and be ready to provide indirect fire support from a position well hidden from enemy observation and protected from counterbattery fire.

AAVs make a lot of noise from both their diesel engines and the characteristic metallic squeal of most fully tracked vehicles. This meant that a few hundred meters further up the rough and narrow trail the machine gun and assault sections also had to jump out in order to be outside hearing range of the enemy’s presumed forward observation posts. Stealthy movement on foot of the men and their heavy burden of weapons and ammunition was required from here on as they put into practice many hours spent on land navigation and other infantry skills.

A bit of a surprise was in order as the platoon’s forward elements neared their predetermined fire positions. The “enemy” had placed a cluster of antitank mines right in the path the AAVs were supposed to take. Fortunately, the assault section had run several practice drills with just this in mind, and soon cleared the way. Unfortunately, as was embarrassingly pointed out later in the after action review, there was little thought given to providing the mine clearing team with covering fire just in case the mine field was sniper’s bait. This, the instructors often say, is “how we learn….”

Meanwhile, as the countermine efforts were still underway, the machine gun section was literally crawling up a gentle incline in the treeline to ensure they were in position and ready to shoot at H Hour. This protected them from enemy observation and put them into an excellent spot allowing unobstructed direct fire on a cluster of derelict target tanks. Situated some 800 meters away, deep in the enormous impact area of Range 7, these tanks represent BTR-60 wheeled armored cars of the enemy motorized rifle platoon as identified in the Operations Order.

Learning Curve

If things had gone exactly according to plan then all weapons would have been in place and simultaneously firing at the appointed time. As it happened, the M240 machine guns started right on schedule but there was a noticeable lag before the mortars began kicking in. Finally, the assault section, reinforced by a pair of M249 SAW’s to represent fire from two attached rifle squads, got into their position in a log crib to the left of the machine gunners, adding more noise and smoke to the “fog of war.” A note to armchair generals — this stuff isn’t easy to do, particularly when the Marine grunts are all new 2nd Lieutenants.

Ah, but when everything started popping away it was a sight to behold. The spacious impact area was crisscrossed with red laserlike tracers from the SAWs and the medium machine guns. Soon, plumes of smoke began to arise nearby on the grid coordinates occupied by the imaginary enemy artillery battery. These marked the impact of high explosive 60mm and 81mm mortar rounds, marched in by a student in the role of Forward Observer.

Exercise controllers soon added a bit more spice to the tactical play, directing the assault section leader to engage with DRAGON and SMAW a trio of target tanks with the closest two about 350 meters out and another approximately 500 meters away. The rocket teams jumped up from the protection of the log crib and scrambled to get into position. Despite their inexperience, it wasn’t long before three antiarmor weapons were ready. One SMAW was first to fire, rapidly popping off several 9mm spotter-tracer rounds until the gunner was sure of his sight picture. This was followed by a deafening blast and flying debris as the big antitank rocket left its launcher and streaked downrange, getting a near miss on the closest enemy armored fighting vehicle. The second SMAW finished the job, scoring a good center of mass hit.

The DRAGON gunner was taking his time, but when he finally hit the trigger bar his guided missile launcher erupted with similar earplug-packing blast and smoke. If there had been any actual bad guys downrange they damn sure knew from the launch signature exactly where these rockets were coming from!

Unlike the point and shoot/fire and forget SMAW, DRAGON is a a wire guided missile that the gunner “flies” to its target by keeping it squarely in crosshairs in his fire control system. Theoretically, this gives the DRAGON the capability of hitting even a fast moving tank. Alas, the missile ran out of wire before it got to its tank and promptly took a nose dive into the dirt. There is an important correlation between maximum range of the weapon and actual range to the target. “This is how we learn.”

By now the AAVs had driven up the free-of-mines trail, their noise of movement screened by the rude concert from multiple weapons. Coming on line, they quickly added to the excitement by pumping .50 caliber slugs and 40mm grenades into the ridgeline occupied by the luckless enemy BTRs. The Mark 19 grenade chucker is an excellent compliment to both the .50 cal and 7.62mm machine guns, literally carpeting the target area with high explosive bomblets. This weapon’s inherent long range effectiveness is particularly enhanced by the sturdy turret mount of the AAV and its highly precise ballistic computing optical sight.

To any enemy the required fifteen minutes of suppressive fire called for in the Operations Order would have been an eternity in Hell of fire and steel. However, as several of the Marine lieutenants later remarked, things on their end seemed to go remarkably fast. This was particularly true for the four M240G machine gunners, who had to make do with a relatively paltry 1200 rounds each and all ran out of ammo before running out of time.

Lessons Learned

As the last rounds were heading downrange the Weapons Platoon pulled back from the firing line to an established rendezvous point. If this had been an actual combat operation, they would then have jumped back into their AAVs and moved out to rejoin the rest of Fox Company, helping to consolidate the Battalion’s objective. But, since this was only a practical exercise, (and the impact area “objective” was full of lethal duds from countless years of firing) the next order of business was to gather around for a quick AAR — After Action Review.

This is the time for a no-bullshit examination of what went right and what went wrong. All participants are encouraged and expected to contribute with students, exercise controllers, safety officers, and weapons NCOs being as candid as possible. This is, after all, a much better way to learn without the unpleasant side effects of being — or causing others to be — wounded or killed.

It has been said that the making of a U.S. Marine Infantry Officer is an inexact science but one with which the Corps has a long history and much demonstrated success. Let us hope and pray that the way it is being done now at Quantico is the best way and will continue to forge the best America has to offer into technically and tactically proficient leaders with no compromises in standards.

Let all Americans of good conscience also demand that our elected representatives promptly and decisively reverse years of the Clinton administration’s politically calculated starvation, neglect and ill-concealed contempt for the Armed Forces. It is long past time for congress to reverse the dangerous slide in readiness and morale by restoring realistic funding levels and allowing a return to common sense rules for training and deploying the men and women soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who keep America’s many enemies at bay.